Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

. hy the heck do you think anyone cares in the first place that you can't get along with somebody?

Why the heck do you think anyone cares in the first place anything that you have to say? Doesn't stop you from saying it. That's what the internet is all about.

And I get along fine with him. He's wonderful in his silence.

I don't think Joe is a troll. It just seems like he enjoys sharing his contrarian views, but puts very little effort into actually trying to understand what other people are saying (because he just assumes they are wrong). This has the unfortunate effect of being a lot like trolling, even if it lacks the same malice.

If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck . . .

After the last JK post in this thread, NOBODY can convince me that there isn't some weird "leftist/rightist", political/social motivation to the drivel we're reading. Yeesh. Generalizations, hyperbole, rhetoric, intellectual dishonesty...it's all there. I sincerely apologize for my part in starting/continuing this mess.

After the last JK post in this thread, NOBODY can convince me that there isn't some weird "leftist/rightist", political/social motivation to the drivel we're reading. Yeesh. Generalizations, hyperbole, rhetoric, intellectual dishonesty...it's all there. I sincerely apologize for my part in starting/continuing this mess.

This is funny. Did you actually follow the Zimmerman thread in real time? The mere suggestion that Zimmerman was anything other than a racist cold-blooded murderer was not only ridiculed, but ridiculed with a level of animus that ended up getting the thread closed down (and maybe deleted (?)).

The same thing happened over at Tango's blog. MGL went so ballistic he ended up deleting the original thread on the topic.

Logan Morrison might be an annoying jerk, but he has a position on public breastfeeding that's apparently shared by at least 25 to 40 percent of the population.

Did you read #167? It's not "at least 25 to 40 percent"? As of two years ago, it was eighteen percent and dropping steadily.

I stand completely by my original premises:...(2) If breastfeeding in public is just another normal activity that's perfectly acceptable in any public setting, then there should be no objection to pictures being taken (from a non-threatening distance, etc.).

Taking pictures of women with whom you are not acquainted without their knowledge or consent is weird and creepy, even if they're in a public space. You don't even need to bring breastfeeding into it.

For the people who believe this woman had a right to privacy while sitting in the middle of a department store, should Nordstrom's security department have shut down all of their surveillance cameras in the vicinity of this woman as soon as she was spotted breastfeeding?

There's a difference between an automated system that constantly takes everyone's picture and a weird, creepy dude with a camera who's only targeting one person. The security camera is obviously not taking her picture for any weird or creepy reasons, because it doesn't have a brain. Whereas there was a person on the other end of Morrison's camera, taking the woman's picture with active intent.

This would seem like a fairly easy distinction to grasp, even for someone like you.

Hey, man, baby gotta eat and it's not like these women are walking around with a baby attached to their boob like baboons. Really, it's no more disturbing than people shoving it in at a Golden Corral. Or gum chewing. Gum chewing grosses me the #### out for some reason and I wish the government would ban it already. Chew your cud in the privacy of your own homes, weirdos!

'Weird and creepy' could describe the obsessive analysis of 911 tapes and social media as well, and public trial by internet. The ever-faster evolving social dynamics of 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' is what's most fascinating about a discussion like this, and perhaps what ultimately gets Joe's knickers all in a twist.

Sounds like "punks" to me - or, less intuitively, "c-nts." I do not hear "c--ns" at all.

CNN backed off their analysis of c**n as well after more analysis. Most relevantly, the prosecution's not even furthering the idea that he said c**n at this point, referring to the phrase as \"####### punks" in the affidavit of probable cause.

The other stuff, we don't really know much about until we hear the witnesses testify, but it's still evidence at this point, just not of the strongest variety.

Really, it's no more disturbing than people shoving it in at a Golden Corral.

I just read this page as I was trying to see what the hubbub was about. Having read this page I have zero desire to read the first two.

However, wanted to point out that I long thought Golden Corral couldn't become a less nutritious place to eat. Then they added Cotton Candy to their buffet. Making the Golden Corral buffet less nutritious took some skill. I stand in awe of their R&D department.

I just read this page as I was trying to see what the hubbub was about. Having read this page I have zero desire to read the first two.

I was just funning. I've never been to a Golden Corral though the occasional all-you-can-eat trip was great fun when I was a kid even if, in retrospect, they weren't very healthy. My brothers and I just loaded up on fried chicken and soft serve ice cream, really.

However, wanted to point out that I long thought Golden Corral couldn't become a less nutritious place to eat. Then they added Cotton Candy to their buffet. Making the Golden Corral buffet less nutritious took some skill. I stand in awe of their R&D department.

The commercial with people dipping marshmallows and #### into a fountain of chocolate syrup does, however, gross me out a little. Yech.

I made exactly ONE reference to "lefties" — a throwaway, jocular line that I thought would immediately be recognized as a recurring theme of the "OT: Politics" thread and be shrugged off accordingly. I love BBTF, but people take this stuff way too seriously.

You know that a lot of people avoid/don't read that thread, right (I mean, that's basically the reason why it's a separate thread)? I would be more careful with this kind of line in the future :) It sure seemed like a random insult.

Wow. The discussion skills of BBTF do seem to be eroding. The outrage at Joe is rather over the top, there really does seem to be a competition to be more outraged than the last poster.

Joe's original post and the post he responded to.
That would pretty much justify whatever insults Jaffe chose to run with. #### LoMo, if that's true.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, if it's OK to breastfeed in public, then why wouldn't it be OK to take a picture of someone breastfeeding in public? Why would a special right to privacy attach to that specific act that doesn't attach to anything else that's done in public?

Joe's reponse to the outrage directed towards his first post (posts suggesting Morrison was trying to intimidate the woman, that Morrison was acting in a criminal manner, and that Joe's comment was political):

Nobody used those specific words, but the fact it's apparently verboten to take a picture of a breastfeeding woman suggests people believe this specific act is deserving of more privacy than anything else that's done in public.

It seems like there's a cognitive dissonance here. If Morrison should have no problem with women breastfeeding in public, then breastfeeding women shouldn't mind having their photos taken by (perhaps classless or juvenile or prudish) people with camera phones.

This of course leads to a poster claiming that is the stupidest thing they have heard in at least a week and another such comment by Joe confirms the depths of his idiocy and he isn't even worth talking to.

WHICH IS ####### RIDICULOUS. If a woman wants to breastfeed in public, great. Does she deserve special privacy? No, it may be polite to look away, but she doesn't DESERVE it. Was Morrison a dick? Yes. Do people take pictures of strangers in public all the time? Yup. Do people take pictures of athletes in public all the time and post them on the internet? Ummm, yes. Has this probably warped Morrison's consideration of pictures and the internet? How about this, do people who take pictures of their sexy bits really think about how easy it is for them to get splashed on the internet?

So instead of discussing conventional thinking on public privacy and posting pictures on the internet we blast Joe for going against the groupthink and attempting to begin the discussion - it's right there in his first post 'to play devil's advocate for a moment'. Why we feel then need to bash someone who thinks differently is beyond me.

FTR, I think LoMo,, Jaff, Joe K, and various people bashing him are all being Jerks.

That said, I am anti public breastfeeding. If you are in public, and need to feed a child, use a bottle, and use a breast pump if you don't like "artificial" milk. If you don't want to do that, have the decency find some place where you can whip your ### out in private.

If that makes me a prude, so be it. Now I am going back to one of my anal porn tabs, which are way more wholesome than this thread.

Of course she does. We all deserve to be treated politely. We all deserve not to be treated rudely.[/quote}

Do you consider it impolite of me to glance at a woman's exposed breast if she is breastfeeding in public? Does politeness dictate that I avert my head? I want to know exactly what you are considering 'polite' here.

I personally feel like if a woman is breastfeeding in public she should be treated with the exact same level of courtesy as anyone else, no special treatment needed. If I see her breasts as I am walking by, so be it. I do not feel like I should need to avert my gaze. Note that I am not talking about staring, I tend to think it is rude to stare.

#226. I think you are overselling your point. I just reread the beginning of the thread and JK's entry into it. His statement was blasted, because he made the statement that "women shouldn't mind" which is a bit silly, especially since it is qualified immediately after by the admission the behavior is classless. Of course he retaliated and it went from there.

Still all that would have blown over (I suspect) except for the odd desire to pull the discussion into privacy, when most wanted to talk about manners. Sure it is allowed to digress, but that seemed to be the point of departure. Once politics got involved it took off.

I also could not find a bunch of people saying they would not discuss this with Joe. In fact the thread continued because people were discussing with him.

And I really hate bringing in "group think" arguments, it is even worse than calling someone a troll. Both are attacks without substance, used instead of addressing the substance of a comment.

All that being said I does look to me that people were a bit strident in going after Joe, but it is the internet and he is a big boy.

Why we feel then need to bash someone who thinks differently is beyond me.

Well I think discussing someones comments is more than OK. Attacking the person isn't. I agree there is too much of the second, but there you go. It is, however, not very mysterious, and it is very common on all sides. It is not like JK was an innocent and has never engaged in that behavior but the other posters were all mean to him.

If you don't want to do that, have the decency find some place where you can whip your ### out in private.

And if that was the normal behavior, you would have a point. But that's not what the vast majority or nursing mothers do in public. They don't "whip it out". The have specialty nursing bras and blouses that discreetly open up and cover up the offending appendage, and unless you get close and stare (which would be rude to do to any stranger), all you will see is the baby's head snuggled up to his mother's breast with the back of his head partially obscured by fabric. Now, seeing that may put an icky image in your mind, but that's your problem, not the mother's

Or gum chewing. Gum chewing grosses me the #### out for some reason and I wish the government would ban it already. Chew your cud in the privacy of your own homes, weirdos!

A co-worker called me yesterday with a question, and she was chewing her gum *so loudly* into the phone that I had to ask her to please spit it out. Even if I held the phone earpiece away from my head, I could still hear that moist squeaking chewing noise.

If you're chewing gum in the office, stop already. You're not Flo, and this isn't Mel's Diner.

Agreed on most points. My 'groupthink' line was more about the fact that the thread was Joe vs Pretty Much Everyone and that PME had decided ahead of time that was Morrison did was a terrible, terrible thing.

I really do think that there is a valid discussion to be had regarding the expectations of privacy in our current culture. Most posters seem to think that having their picture taken discretely and posted on the internet is terrible. I tend to agree. However I can only imagine the warped world a professional athlete or celebrity lives in where having their picture taken discretely is a commonplace occurrence. Hell, I just saw a few MLB players at a bar and had to resist the urge to take a picture to show to my buddies. So if it is common for others to do that to you, shouldn't we consider that when judging Morrison? Teens as well seem to have fewer and fewer limitations on pictures and the internet.

There was a thread not too long ago about an injured MLB player taking a picture of a random stranger in a restaurant and posting it on the internet after she did it to him. Wish I could remember who so I could re-read the thread (although I don't think it was a long one).

EDIT:

Well I think discussing someones comments is more than OK. Attacking the person isn't. I agree there is too much of the second, but there you go. It is, however, not very mysterious, and it is very common on all sides. It is not like JK was an innocent and has never engaged in that behavior but the other posters were all mean to him.

Should have added, this was an argument used against Joe upthread - just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's not rude. Attacking someone because it's the internet is not ok. Attacking someone because they have attacked before is not ok. There are too many people on this site that go into discussions with way too much personal investment. We all need to be better at arguing with someone as it applies to the current thread, and not based off of old conversations.

There's a difference between an automated system that constantly takes everyone's picture and a weird, creepy dude with a camera who's only targeting one person. The security camera is obviously not taking her picture for any weird or creepy reasons, because it doesn't have a brain. Whereas there was a person on the other end of Morrison's camera, taking the woman's picture with active intent.

This would seem like a fairly easy distinction to grasp, even for someone like you.

I'd be really surprised if Nordstrom's security system was fully automated. You seem to be claiming that it's OK to film a woman while she's breastfeeding, and possibly keep such footage on file for months or years, as long as she doesn't know it's happening. This seems like an odd position to take.

If I was doing something I didn't want to be filmed, the middle of a department store would be the last place I'd do it, since (1) there are cameras installed every 10 feet, and (2) there's no guarantee that some "creepy" guy in the security department isn't compiling a "greatest hits" collection for his private use.

***

You know that a lot of people avoid/don't read that thread, right (I mean, that's basically the reason why it's a separate thread)? I would be more careful with this kind of line in the future :) It sure seemed like a random insult.

I'm a big boy and I like mixing it up in these discussions, so the insults don't bother me. But it's comical to suggest that I'm the one who needs to raise the level of discourse around here.

Ermm...I didn't say that...? I just noted that you were saying that this was a throwaway reference and I figured I'd helpfully point out that, absent the proper context, a reference can be interpreted badly? I don't read the political thread (by choice, I hate all of this crap; the only reason I even read this thread is because it's a Friday and I'm bored at work) and therefore I was one of the people who interepreted what you said, not as a reference to a joke in another thread, but as a comment designed to instigate others...I was just trying to maybe isolate where this misunderstanding originated? Regardless, there doesn't really appear to be need for me here :)

I was just trying to maybe isolate where this misunderstanding originated?

My very first words in my very first comment in this thread were, "Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, ..." I thought those words plainly signaled my desire for a dispassionate discussion of the issue Morrison raised, but instead, people started heaping opprobrium and trying to outdo each other in the outrage department.

I'd be really surprised if Nordstrom's security system was fully automated. You seem to be claiming that it's OK to film a woman while she's breastfeeding, and possibly keep such footage on file for months or years, as long as she doesn't know it's happening. This seems like an odd position to take.

If I was doing something I didn't want to be filmed, the middle of a department store would be the last place I'd do it, since (1) there are cameras installed every 10 feet, and (2) there's no guarantee that some "creepy" guy in the security department isn't compiling a "greatest hits" collection for his private use.

Stores with security cameras are private property, not public areas, and they pretty much all post notices at the front door that security cameras are going to be recording you in the store (since they want thieves to know about the cameras and be deterred by them). As such, by shopping in those stores, you're implicitly granting the store permission to film you.

The security camera in a store records everything that passes in front of it, all the time. It's not picking-and-choosing what gets filmed, like a creepy guy with a camera. It's also not capable of following or assaulting a woman, which is the natural progression for a creepy stalker who takes pictures of women without their knowledge. It isn't even capable of quietly having a prurient interest in the women it records, because it's a machine with no brain or genitals.

As such, your analogy is entirely invalid.

My very first words in my very first comment in this thread were, "Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, ..." I thought those words plainly signaled my desire for a dispassionate discussion of the issue Morrison raised, but instead, people started heaping opprobrium and trying to outdo each other in the outrage department.

If you wanted "a dispassionate discussion of the issue Morrison raised", why did you spend a page and a half focusing on the question of whether or not his actions were legal (something that people really weren't disputing) rather than whether or not his actions made him look like a creepy jerk (which was the actual issue at hand)?

Zenbitz, these people dress like this because they want attention, just like the guys with face tattoos want attention.

Not all of them. Some just don't have much of a sense of style. I just went to the site and looked, and on the first two pages of recent submissions you've got an old man in a midriff shirt and two people in denim pants-and-jackets. Not flashy stuff, just unattractive.

The security camera in a store records everything that passes in front of it, all the time. It's not picking-and-choosing what gets filmed, like a creepy guy with a camera.

Where did you get this idea that actual human beings don't watch, record, and otherwise monitor in-store camera systems? Do you not realize that the very purpose of these systems is to allow security staff to track people and watch for theft?

When a woman starts breastfeeding in the store, or a beautiful woman walks through, do you believe the $8/hour workers in the security department all turn their heads away from the screens, or do they use the available technology to get a better look?

It's also not capable of following or assaulting a woman, which is the natural progression for a creepy stalker who takes pictures of women without their knowledge. It isn't even capable of quietly having a prurient interest in the women it records, because it's a machine with no brain or genitals.

This woman had no clue what the security staff was doing. For all she knows, the next Ted Bundy works in Nordstrom's security department.

I remember a classmate breastfeeding her child who was around four years old in a student study lounge. The lounge had booths around it so there was a little privacy but it wasn't exactly a huge room and there were at least 20 people in it. Don't worry - I wasn't offended nor did I take a picture, but my friends and I thought that was extraordinarily strange.

Joe -- I think that jacksone did a pretty good job of defending you. I see no reason to keep digging.

You did make a comment on the first page which I liked a lot, though, saying "Expressing his opinion would have been "rude"? Why? Who magically decided that it's beyond the pale to discuss the issue of breastfeeding in public?"

Have we all generally agreed that posting of the photograph, although legal on Morrison's part, was rude, regardless of one's position on the appropriateness of the public breastfeeding?

Where did you get this idea that actual human beings don't watch, record, and otherwise monitor in-store camera systems? Do you not realize that the very purpose of these systems is to allow security staff to track people and watch for theft?

I'm not sure how this works with your point either way, but I worked for a GC that was remodeling Bloomingdale's 59th street for years. They have the most insane amount of cameras and most complete theft-monitor control room you have ever seen. Our foreman was constantly reminding the subs that if you even thought about stealing something you were going to get caught. But that doesn't mean that someone is watching live all the time, not even remotely, because it was simply impossible. The percentage of footage that went unwatched was a pretty great majority.

Where did you get this idea that actual human beings don't watch, record, and otherwise monitor in-store camera systems?

Most places with security cameras have passive security, and only go back and look at the tapes if there's a problem of some kind. My office's tape system re-records over top of itself every 48 hours, and there's no active monitoring.

Lots of places don't even use real cameras - just boxes with a blinking light on them. That's how the ones at the high school where my grandfather taught were set up. I know because he's the guy who built them.

When a woman starts breastfeeding in the store, or a beautiful woman walks through, do you believe the $8/hour workers in the security department all turn their heads away from the screens, or do they use the available technology to get a better look?

Most security cameras don't pan or zoom on command (because that kind of stuff costs money), so there isn't any way to "get a better look". They're either focused on a static field or they follow a pre-programmed arc. They just passively record whatever happens in front of the lens.

This woman had no clue what the security staff was doing. For all she knows, the next Ted Bundy works in Nordstrom's security department.

Even for the few places who actually have a security guard, the guard isn't the one determining what does and doesn't get recorded. The active intent of recording specifically for nefarious purposes is what makes taking pictures of strange women as creepy as it is.

From reality. A few weeks ago a local store got robbed. They didn't have their security cameras on. They were nothing more than a visual deterrent.

EDIT: Check that, it was a bar, it and the patrons got robbed.

We weren't talking about a bar. We were talking about Nordstrom, which has a large security staff charged with protecting the millions of dollars in property in each store. If you believe Nordstrom and similar stores have nothing more than a few dummy cameras to fool would-be thieves, you're nuts.

EDIT: Lassus' #258 just confirmed as much. (Also, I never claimed every camera was watched 24/7. The point was that anyone walking into a store is likely to be filmed many times from many angles, and none of us have any way to know what the people in the control room are doing with the footage.)

We weren't talking about a bar. We were talking about Nordstrom, which has a large security staff charged with protecting the millions of dollars in property in each store. If you believe Nordstrom and similar stores have nothing more than a few dummy cameras to fool would-be thieves, you're nuts.

Yeah, but your argument is that if a store has a bunch of arrested development employees who abuse the security cameras that means, ipso facto, that a patron has no basis to complain if some jagoff non-employee takes a picture of her breastfeeding in the store and publishes it on the internet.

Yeah, but your argument is that if a store has a bunch of arrested development employees who abuse the security cameras that means, ipso facto that a patron has no basis to complain if some jagoff non-employee takes a picture of her breastfeeding in the store and publishes it on the internet.

Uh, no, we were talking about the expectation of privacy when in public.

I'd love to know how many of the people who are bashing Morrison watched the infamous Erin Andrews tape. That would tell us all we need to know about people's senses of privacy, manners, decorum, etc.

Uh, no, we were talking about the expectation of privacy when in public.

Yes, we were. And since the inside of a store is private property owned by the store, not public property, your example was totally pointless. Women who see a printed notice posted at the store's entry stating that the store's cameras will be recording them and then choose to enter are by definition granting the store permission to record them.

I'd love to know how many of the people who are bashing Morrison watched the infamous Erin Andrews tape. That would tell us all we need to know about people's senses of privacy, manners, decorum, etc.

Yes, because it's totally impossible for a rude, creepy person to recognize rude, creepy behavior being demonstrated by other people.

Yes, we were. And since the inside of a store is private property owned by the store, not public property, your example was totally pointless. Women who see a printed notice posted at the store's entry stating that the store's cameras will be recording them and then choose to enter are by definition granting the store permission to record them.

This is nonsense. I'm recorded all the time without being served with a written warning. Have my rights been violated?

Yes, because it's totally impossible for a rude, creepy person to recognize rude, creepy behavior being demonstrated by other people.

Huh? What are you talking about?

My point was very simple: Anyone who made the deliberate effort to find, download, and watch the Erin Andrews tape should have absolutely nothing to say re: Morrison's actions.

***

Whatever Joe. If I hadn't double checked what kind of business it was, what would you have said instead dismissing it away because it's not Nordstrom?

LOL. How many bars have a security staff sitting in a secure room monitoring the security cameras that have been deployed?

This is nonsense. I'm recorded all the time without being served with a written warning.

Hey, what's this? It's a copy of the "Security" section of Nordstrom's internal procedure manual! If you go to the top of page 2-12, the bit dealing with security cameras and the monitoring thereof, it says, "As an additional deterrent, signs should be posted throughout the premises, stating, 'This facility is equipped with a video surveillance system. You are subject to recording.'"

Way to totally ignore my point about the store being private property rather than public, BTW. Just because it totally undercuts all of your irrelevant blather about public expectations of privacy doesn't mean that you can't gracefully acknowledge that you were wrong.

My point was very simple: Anyone who made the deliberate effort to find, download, and watch the Erin Andrews tape should have absolutely nothing to say re: Morrison's actions.

Your point was simple, but also wrong, and kind of dumb. People don't need any kind of moral standing of their own to accurately recognize and call attention to bad behavior by others. You ever hear the expression, "Set a thief to catch a thief"?

EDIT: Lassus' #258 just confirmed as much. (Also, I never claimed every camera was watched 24/7. The point was that anyone walking into a store is likely to be filmed many times from many angles, and none of us have any way to know what the people in the control room are doing with the footage.)

Well, I thought my post made it more or less clear that most of it is ignored and discarded. That being said, Bloomy's has decades of high-level operation that is really at the END of the bell-curve, they know that the people they are recording have lots of money for lots of lawyers; I don't think it falls as much under the tinfoil-hat paranoia you seem to have about people jerking off to lactaters. I think places like Sears and Target have more cameras for show because they can't afford to pay anyone to even run the crap. WTF goes on there is beyond me. Bloomingdales, not so much.

Hey, what's this? It's a copy of the "Security" section of Nordstrom's internal procedure manual! If you go to the top of page 2-12, the bit dealing with security cameras and the monitoring thereof, it says, "As an additional deterrent, signs should be posted throughout the premises, stating, 'This facility is equipped with a video surveillance system. You are subject to recording.'"

Yes, as an additional deterrent to theft, not as an additional privacy warning.

Way to totally ignore my point about the store being private property rather than public, BTW. Just because it totally undercuts all of your irrelevant blather about public expectations of privacy doesn't mean that you can't gracefully acknowledge that you were wrong.

Wrong about what? Nordstrom is privately owned but it's considered a public area for purposes such as this. Nordstrom can't hang a sign that says "Blacks Not Allowed" or "Disabled People Not Allowed" just because the store happens to be privately owned. This is basic stuff.

Your point was simple, but also wrong, and kind of dumb. People don't need any kind of moral standing of their own to accurately recognize and call attention to bad behavior by others. You ever hear the expression, "Set a thief to catch a thief"?

Anyone who made the effort to find, download, and watch a video of Erin Andrews' privacy being violated has absolutely no standing to moralize about Logan Morrison's behavior.

***

Well, I thought my post made it more or less clear that most of it is ignored and discarded.

I never claimed all of the footage was watched. The point was that the footage exists, and that the people who are filmed have absolutely no idea what's done with any resulting footage.

Loss prevention is largely for insurance purposes only. Even though some personnel may get overly aggressive, they're generally instructed not to confront/resist shoplifters. The smaller the corporation, the more resistance. The large drug chains accept huge losses from theft outside of Px where the real money is made.

Where did you get this idea that actual human beings don't watch, record, and otherwise monitor in-store camera systems?

... you thought I was implying that every single security camera was recording and/or being watched 24/7/365? In a thread full of absurdities, that might be the biggest.

***

I think so, yes. But is it worse than the actions of people who lean back in airplane seats? I think not.

Ha ha. It's funny how shrinking legroom has turned this into such a hot topic. I'm surprised the airlines haven't split the difference by fixing the seats in place with a slight decline, at least in cattle coach class.

I'm a big boy and I like mixing it up in these discussions, so the insults don't bother me. But it's comical to suggest that I'm the one who needs to raise the level of discourse around here.

Again, I don't think you are actively trolling, and I certainly don't think you deserve to be called a racist nazi or whatever, but if you consistently illicit the same reaction from an array of people, you might want to consider that the problem isn't solely them.

Again, I don't think you are actively trolling, and I certainly don't think you deserve to be called a racist nazi or whatever, but if you consistently illicit the same reaction from an array of people, you might want to consider that the problem isn't solely them.

I don't deserve to be called a "racist nazi"? Well, uh, thanks. At least I have that going for me.

If only I was a liberal, things would be so much more peaceful around here.

***

It's hard for me to get uppity about airplane seats being used in the way they were designed to be used.

If only this woman had used her breasts in the way they were designed to be used.

Yes, as an additional deterrent to theft, not as an additional privacy warning.

So what? Functionally, it works as both, regardless of the intent.

Wrong about what? Nordstrom is privately owned but it's considered a public area for purposes such as this. Nordstrom can't hang a sign that says "Blacks Not Allowed" or "Disabled People Not Allowed" just because the store happens to be privately owned.

Stores aren't allowed to restrict access or service based on membership within certain protected classes (the exact list varies from state to state), but other than that, they're more or less free to kick out or refuse service to whomever they want, as long as they can cite up with a legitimate business reason for doing so. They certainly aren't under any obligation to allow people to take photographs of their facilities, employees, or customers if they don't want to do so. As such, from legal terms (since you seem bound and determined to try and argue from that perspective), it's highly relevant that this was a private establishment, rather than a public commons like a park or a sidewalk.

Anyone who made the effort to find, download, and watch a video of Erin Andrews' privacy being violated has absolutely no standing to moralize about Logan Morrison's behavior.

I'm going to repeat the relevant line from my prior post: People don't need any kind of moral standing of their own to accurately recognize and call attention to bad behavior by others. That's why you aren't allowed to rob a thief, rape a rapist, or murder a murderer.

The point was that the footage exists, and that the people who are filmed have absolutely no idea what's done with any resulting footage.

But since they've given their implicit consent by noting posted signs about video recording on the premises and entering the premises anyway, none of that matters at all. They've agreed to be filmed.

Even though it's gilding the lily on your wrongness on this issue, I'm staggered that you can't recognize the moral difference between an automated system that passively collects images without regard for content and a manual system (i.e. a creepy guy like Morrison with a hand-held camera) that deliberately selects and intelligently pursues them. The apparent intent of image collection from the woman's perspective is the source of the creepiness.

They certainly aren't under any obligation to allow people to take photographs of their facilities, employees, or customers if they don't want to do so. As such, from legal terms (since you seem bound and determined to try and argue from that perspective), it's highly relevant that this was a private establishment, rather than a public commons like a park or a sidewalk.

I still don't see the relevance of this or how you believe it refutes anything I've said. Even if Nordstrom had a "no photos" policy, the worst that could have happened to Morrison is him being asked to leave. Nordstrom couldn't forcibly confiscate his cell phone or compel him to delete any pictures he took.

But since they've given their implicit consent by noting posted signs about video recording on the premises and entering the premises anyway, none of that matters at all. They've agreed to be filmed.

But there's no legal requirement to post such signs, and you have no clue if this woman saw any such sign on her way into the store. I've spent far too much time in shopping malls, and I can't ever recall seeing a huge sign in a department store's entryway advising me I might be filmed.

Even though it's gilding the lily on your wrongness on this issue, I'm staggered that you can't recognize the moral difference between an automated system that passively collects images without regard for content and a manual system (i.e. a creepy guy like Morrison with a hand-held camera) that deliberately selects and intelligently pursues them. The apparent intent of image collection from the woman's perspective is the source of the creepiness.

Again, where did you get this bizarre belief that Nordstrom's security operations are automated and unmanned by human eyes? Big department stores have walls of TV monitors on which security staff — actual human beings — watch the customers.

If I was a woman breastfeeding in the middle of a department store, I'd be much more concerned about the 10 overhead security cameras that could be trained on me than I would be about some clown snapping a blurry camera-phone picture.

I still don't see the relevance of this or how you believe it refutes anything I've said.

You wanted to talk about reasonable expectations of privacy in a public space, but since a Nordstrom store isn't a public space and doesn't operate under the same rules as one, your entire participation in this thread was totally pointless.

But there's no legal requirement to post such signs...

So what? If signs were posted, they were posted, and people who entered the store implicitly consented to let the store take images of them.

you have no clue if this woman saw any such sign on her way into the store

Even if she didn't, so what? If the sign was there, and she didn't read it, that's on her, not them.

I've spent far too much time in shopping malls, and I can't ever recall seeing a huge sign in a department store's entryway advising me I might be filmed.

If you paid the same amount of attention in those malls as you did in this thread, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Again, where did you get this bizarre belief that Nordstrom's security operations are automated and unmanned by human eyes? Big department stores have walls of TV monitors on which security staff — actual human beings — watch the customers.

Please stop misrepresenting my position. Humans may or may not be watching the tape at some point in the process, but humans are not directing which parts of the store are being recorded, because the camera paths are either static or pre-set patterns of motion. Any humans watching the footage are passive observers in the recording process, not active participants like a guy walking around with a manual camera and pointing it at stuff.

The creepiness of photographing a strange woman comes from the act of the photographer looking at her, making a mental assessment of some sort, and choosing to take the photo (for purposes unknown). An automated surveillance system can't be creepy in the same way, in that it is not consciously choosing what it does and does not record, but rather films anything in front of its lens impartially. It is an unthinking machine with no moral standing, a blank slate.

If I was a woman breastfeeding in the middle of a department store, I'd be much more concerned about the 10 overhead security cameras that could be trained on me than I would be about some clown snapping a blurry camera-phone picture.

This just shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the way women think. How many women last year were robbed or raped by security cameras?

You wanted to talk about reasonable expectations of privacy in a public space, but since a Nordstrom store isn't a public space and doesn't operate under the same rules as one, your entire participation in this thread was totally pointless.

You're really flailing now. The idea that the middle of a department store is considered a "private" area within the context of this discussion is ludicrous.

Humans may or may not be watching the tape at some point in the process, but humans are not directing which parts of the store are being recorded, because the camera paths are either static or pre-set patterns of motion.

What is this, 1970? Security cameras have come a long way from what you describe. People can pan and zoom their security cameras from their iPhone while sitting in a Starbucks thousands of miles away from their home or business.

An automated surveillance system can't be creepy in the same way, in that it is not consciously choosing what it does and does not record, but rather films anything in front of its lens impartially. It is an unthinking machine with no moral standing, a blank slate.

Except such systems are only automated some of the time, and can be manually controlled as soon as one of the human observers wants a better look at the subject at hand.

This just shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the way women think. How many women last year were robbed or raped by security cameras?

This is loony tunes. How many women last year were robbed or raped by clowns who snapped pictures on their camera phone?

I don't know much about the mindset of rapists or robbers, but I'm guessing Rule No. 1 for such folks is to try to avoid making themselves look like "creeps" rather than making their presence known by snapping pictures from 5 feet away.

It's hard for me to get uppity about airplane seats being used in the way they were designed to be used.

The original Barnaby Jones was 6'3"+, and I suspect he wouldn't much like sitting in today's coach class. I would peg you as someone who is not very tall, and who does not fly a lot on business (because you can't really read a laptop screen in coach if you're tall and the seat in front of you is reclined). I think it's pretty damn rude not to take into account your impact on the person behind you.

That this is what you took from what I wrote only illustrates my point.

I guess you don't have much of a sense of humor. If you'd like a non-joking reply ...

Again, I don't think you are actively trolling, and I certainly don't think you deserve to be called a racist nazi or whatever, but if you consistently illicit the same reaction from an array of people, you might want to consider that the problem isn't solely them.

First of all, no one, to my knowledge, has ever called me a "racist nazi," so that's a weird jumping-off point.

Second, to the extent I "consistently elicit the same reaction from an array of people," it's the same "array of people" who hurl insults at Ray, David, Dan, et al., for having the temerity to have non-conforming, non-liberal views. I occasionally answer snark with snark, but the long list of insults detailed in #236 suggests that it might be this "array of people" who have the problem here rather than me.

If people believe I'm "trolling," then the only intelligent response is ... nothing. And if people don't believe I'm trolling, then they should try debating issues on the merits without hurling invective at people who have differing opinions.

Second, to the extent I "consistently elicit the same reaction from an array of people," it's the same "array of people" who hurl insults at Ray, David, Dan, et al., for having the temerity to have non-conforming, non-liberal views

Show me ONE time this applies to me in ANY way, please.

After you fail at that, realize there may be some truth to the original statement.

I don't know you, or your views. I don't care. You're being intellectually dishonest in this thread and carrying on in the WORST way possible for constructive dialogue. If it is indeed an intelligent discussion you were after, you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring facts lef and right and wouldn't be making this some political/social affair, as if people can ONLY be on one side or another and have to form their opinions/morals based on some silly label/affiliation. Just end the rhetoric. It's really lame at this point.

The thread could have been about the proper shape of ice cubes and this might have happened.

Yes, but only because you (and your commoner brethren) are too much of a simpleton to understand my incredibly obvious (yet somehow simultaneously so incredibly intricate that only a supergenius like myself could have come up with it [while so incredibly complicated, that even a supergenius like myself cannot intelligibly explain it]--while still being so plain-as-day that your failure to grasp it as a matter of instinct justifies my eternal scorn and derision towards you) formula for determining the proper shape of ice cubes. As defined by me, of course.

Do you have some sort of persecution complex or something? I've never mentioned you and you're not listed in #236, which was the source of Barnaby Jones' subsequent commentary. (Frankly, until this thread, I never knew you existed.)

I don't care. You're being intellectually dishonest in this thread and carrying on in the WORST way possible for constructive dialogue.

Yes, discussing something dispassionately is so much worse than hurling insults like "troll," "idiot," and "jack-off." If only I acted like a hysterical screamer, this thread would have been so much better.

If it is indeed an intelligent discussion you were after, you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring facts lef and right and wouldn't be making this some political/social affair

So people hurl insults for three pages and it's no problem, but I use the word "lefty" exactly one time and that was beyond the pale. Comical.

Also, if you don't have anything to add, why don't you leave, instead of returning time and again to post comments like these:

After the last JK post in this thread, NOBODY can convince me that there isn't some weird "leftist/rightist", political/social motivation to the drivel we're reading. Yeesh. Generalizations, hyperbole, rhetoric, intellectual dishonesty...it's all there. I sincerely apologize for my part in starting/continuing this mess.

Nobody's nuked this abomination yet???

I don't know you, or your views. I don't care. You're being intellectually dishonest in this thread and carrying on in the WORST way possible for constructive dialogue. If it is indeed an intelligent discussion you were after, you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring facts lef and right and wouldn't be making this some political/social affair, as if people can ONLY be on one side or another and have to form their opinions/morals based on some silly label/affiliation. Just end the rhetoric. It's really lame at this point.

Who appointed you the thread police? If you're not interested, click your way over to some other thread.

Second, to the extent I "consistently elicit the same reaction from an array of people," it's the same "array of people" who hurl insults at Ray, David, Dan, et al., for having the temerity to have non-conforming, non-liberal views. I occasionally answer snark with snark, but the long list of insults detailed in #236 suggests that it might be this "array of people" who have the problem here rather than me.

Dude, I'm not exactly liberal or sabermetrically orthodox (for that matter) and no one hurls insults at me. Hell, I couldn't get insulted if I paid people to flame me. I once wrote an article about baseball and Cuba that was linked here and it didn't start a political fight. I could say that I'm glad Jim Rice is in the Hall of Fame and no one would care.

Dude, I'm not exactly liberal or sabermetrically orthodox (for that matter) and no one hurls insults at me. Hell, I couldn't get insulted if I paid people to flame me. I once wrote an article about baseball and Cuba that was linked here and it didn't start a political fight. I could say that I'm glad Jim Rice is in the Hall of Fame and no one would care.

???

I don't ever recall seeing you in the political threads or seeing anyone mentioning you as one of the site's non-liberals.

So people hurl insults for three pages and it's no problem, but I use the word "lefty" exactly one time and that was beyond the pale. Comical.

Also, if you don't have anything to add, why don't you leave, instead of returning time and again to post comments like these:

Free speech and all that.

You use the excuse that it was "beyond the pale", yet you keep making consistent references to the "liberals" and "non-liberal" views.

You ignore the obvious fact that CCTV is NOT publicly available, whereas a personal photograph by a random person being posted on the internet IS. I cannot fathom the disconnect there. This is one of many things you continue to blisfully ignore.

You claim to want to defend Logan Morrison's right to free speech, while bashing others here for expressing their views because they are contrary to your own.

You've had several respectable posters throw up their hands and walkaway, not because you're making a point, but because you refuse to acknowledge what oters are saying without twisting it around and/or applying silly labels to things, which you did more than once, and have done several times that seem to show a passionate feeling towards that particular subject.

As for persecution complex, who feels like they're being persecuted? Read your own words, my friend.

Now, everyone's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Nobody is going to changeanyone else's mind. That's clear.

At that point, just say "F it, we're not all on the same page and aren't going to be, let's get back to talking ball", right?

I don't ever recall seeing you in the political threads or seeing anyone mentioning you as one of the site's non-liberals.

I don't really come around much anymore. They blocked sports sites at work, I don't have smart phone and I got married a couple of years ago. Even back in the day I didn't post often in political threads (except to complain about them, but I was pretty active in the baseball threads. Do you remember me at all from those? Or has my profile here gone down that much?

I just don't really follow politics enough to bring anything to the table and those type of threads angry up the blood anyways. But I thought that Dan Szymborski would mention me every once in a while on his list of non-liberals. I'm the one who once called this place half-jokingly Moscow In The Bleachers and Banned Andy used it as a handle.

You're really flailing now. The idea that the middle of a department store is considered a "private" area within the context of this discussion is ludicrous.

It's private property. You can scoff as much as you like, but that doesn't change the facts. None of your mumbling about legality applies at all (and you seem to have a very poor understanding of the legal considerations for private property, as demonstrated by #271).

What is this, 1970? Security cameras have come a long way from what you describe. People can pan and zoom their security cameras from their iPhone while sitting in a Starbucks thousands of miles away from their home or business.

If companies want to invest top dollar in the most up-to-date equipment, they can get that kind of performance, but the vast majority don't. Most of those 1970s-era systems are still in use.

Just look at the Nordstrom manual I linked earlier. If companies are as high tech as you seem to think, why does the manual address the maximum number of hours of footage that is permissible to store on a VHS tape?

Except such systems are only automated some of the time, and can be manually controlled as soon as one of the human observers wants a better look at the subject at hand.

Only if they're extremely new systems, rather than the legacy systems still in use in most places. If we were talking about a casino or something like that, maybe, but a run-of-the-mill retail box? It's just not worth it. If those kinds of stores want a closer look at something, they generally have an employee walk over and look in person.

How many women last year were robbed or raped by clowns who snapped pictures on their camera phone?

It's actually quite common for people who engage in voyeuristic behaviors like stalking or peeping to subsequently escalate their behavior to rape. They're getting off on the fear of being caught, which leads them to them taking progressively bigger and bigger risks.

- according to the pediatricians the answer is and i am not kidding - "as long as they want to and you make milk"
which means it is fine with them if you breastfeed your college kids. it is also ok to have your kidz sleep in your bed with you as long as you want.

as for getting your picture taken, if you are outside out your house it's fair game. you don't want to see your self on the youtube/facebook/internet anywheres, there's nothing you can do about it once you leave your house. they even post pics/vids of total strangers and ask do you know who this is?